Clean Water Act

 

Water Announcement On Tap. According to Politico, “EPA is holding a press briefing this morning on a ‘water announcement,’ though details were scarce. Water industry sources say they don’t think either of the big water regulations sitting at OMB — a long-awaited update to the Lead and Copper rule and Trump administration revisions to an Obama-era rule limiting discharges from coal-fired power plans — are ready to go. But it’s worth noting, today marks one week since Trump promised EPA would issue environmental violations within a week to San Francisco related to its homeless population polluting the ocean — a claim he made without evidence and that was dismissed as ridiculous by city and state officials.” [Politico, 9/26/19 (=)]

 

WOTUS

 

Op-Ed: Repealing Water Rule Will Spur Wetland Litigation. According to Minnesota Lawyer, “Under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal agencies must follow specific steps when they seek to establish or repeal a regulation. These procedures are meant to establish efficiency, consistency and accountability. To promote fairness and transparency, the law requires that the public must have meaningful opportunity to comment on proposed rules before they take effect. The Waters of the United States rule emerged from an extensive rule-making process that featured a 120-day public comment period and over 400 meetings with state, tribal and local officials and numerous stakeholders representing business, agriculture, environmental and public health organizations. It generated over one million comments, the bulk of which supported the rule. This process followed a comprehensive peer-reviewed scientific assessment that synthesized over 1,000 studies documenting the importance of small streams and wetlands to the health of large rivers, lakes and estuaries. According to a 2015 fact sheet, which has been scrubbed from EPA’s website, the rule protected streams that roughly one in three Americans depend upon for their drinking water. Importantly, EPA does not dispute any findings of the peer-reviewed scientific studies that the Obama administration cited to support its approach. Nor does the agency contend that any relevant facts or circumstances have changed since 2015. Its economic analysis has been heavily criticized by economists for opting not to assign economic benefits to wetland protection. Instead, the Trump administration relies on a legal argument that the 2015 rule exceeds EPA’s authority, misreads applicable Supreme Court decisions and fails to show proper respect to states’ rights to use their land and water resources as they see fit.” [Minnesota Lawyer, 9/25/19 (=)]

 

Coal Ash

 

AP | TVA Works To Reassure Worried Public About Coal Ash. According to E&E News, “The Tennessee Valley Authority has a three-pronged mission to promote energy, economic development and the environment. Now add to that rebuilding public trust. The New Deal-era public utility has taken a beating recently for a series of missteps surrounding its storage of coal ash. For decades TVA, like other utilities, primarily dealt with this waste by sluicing it into unlined pits and impoundments. When a dike burst on a six-story tall impoundment in Kingston, Tenn., in 2008, the problem could no longer be ignored. Although the spill was cleaned up, the repercussions for TVA are ongoing. Many of the workers involved in the project are suing TVA’s subcontractor, claiming inhaling the coal ash made them sick. And residents who live near other coal-burning power plants have expressed concerns that the toxic chemicals in the ash could leach into their drinking water. TVA CEO Jeff Lyash has said the utility is following the law and science in deciding how to deal with its coal ash storage. But he also recognizes that TVA needs to win the public’s trust. That’s why the utility has been holding a series of community meetings to explain its plans for the coal ash and let the public ask questions. Lyash said in an interview that coal for many years ‘helped power economies and improve lives and communities.’ ‘Now we also realize that along with the benefits, we have to be committed to carefully managing the coal combustion residuals.’” [E&E News, 9/25/19 (=)]

 

Toxic Algae

 

Blue-Green Algae Task Force Warns Climate Change Increases Risk Of Blooms. According to Florida Politics, “Data on climate change and global warming, words reportedly barred from use during Rick Scott’s tenure as Governor, will inform recommendations from the Blue-Green Algae Task Force. ‘Cyanobacteria over 3.5 billion years have adapted to just about everything,’ said Dr. Valerie Paul, a task force member. ‘But warmer winters allow them to persist into our season.’ The observations should end up in a preamble to recommendations for Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida lawmakers regarding response to algal blooms that devastated parts of Florida over several recent years. Scientific leaders want the state to invest more into water research, enact environmental oversight on septic tanks and build a greater understanding of how the algae poison the air. All those desires will be included in early recommendations of the task force appointed by DeSantis to tackle problems around blooms. The toxic sludge has especially hurt parts of the state around Lake Okeechobee and the poisonous bacteria exploded on the Caloosahatchee and St. Johns rivers.” [Florida Politics, 9/26/19 (=)]

 

Algae Task Force Releases Recommendations To Prevent SWFL Water Crisis. According to WINK-TV, “The Blue-Green Algae Task Force released its recommendations Wednesday on how to prevent gross gunk from coming back to our water. However, its plans are not finalized yet. To steer away from blue-green algae issues, we need a road map. Dr. Thomas Frazer, the chief science officer for the State of Florida, said the task force made actionable recommendations. ‘We’ve got water quality issues all around the state,’ Frazer said. ‘And I think some of the recommendations that we’re making, if not, all of those recommendations, can be generally applied and it’s going to be in everybody’s best interest.’ The state task force is responsible for addressing and reducing nutrients going into our waterways. It recommends a septic tank inspection and monitoring program, along with getting more farmers to cut back on pollutants and conserve water. But some said that is not enough, including Diana Umpierre, the organizing representative of the Everglades Restoration Campaign for the Sierra Club. ‘If that document is kind of like a blueprint that is kind of going to be the first step and they’re going to follow with specific recommendations, particular with regulatory recommendations,’ she said, ‘then it is a good first step.’ Andy Mele, executive director of the Suncoast Waterkeeper, supports the recommendations, but it needs to be more specific. ‘It’s overly general,’ Mele said. ‘This sort of consensus document that they’re working on now is too general, but a lot of the panelists are picking that up.’” [WINK-TV, 9/25/19 (=)]

 

Drinking Water

 

EPA Fails To Ensure Public Notification Of Risks — IG. According to E&E News, “EPA’s internal watchdog today slammed the agency for repeatedly overlooking when public water systems don’t adequately inform their customers of drinking water violations that could put the public at risk. There are nearly 147,000 public water systems in the United States, which provide year-round drinking water to some 308 million customers, according to Charles Sheehan, EPA’s deputy inspector general. Between 2001 and 2017, the IG and his team found those water systems didn’t properly notify their customers of dangerous drinking water violations an average of 6,000 times per year. That’s a serious problem, the watchdog concluded after a 20-month investigation. ‘Public notice serves as a vital step in protecting customers by alerting them when drinking water is not safe or when other problems occurred with the management of their drinking water,’ the IG’s report says. EPA has delegated oversight of drinking water systems to 49 states, five territories and the Navajo Nation. But the agency is still responsible for checking their work and directly overseeing water operations in Wyoming, the District of Columbia and the non-Navajo portions of Indian Country. The IG found that ‘EPA needs to improve its oversight of notice regulatory requirements.’” [E&E News, 9/25/19 (=)]

 

PFAS

 

PFAS-Palooza, Part MCCLXXXIV. According to Politico, “The fight over which PFAS provisions make it into the final defense bill is reaching a feverpitch as negotiators aim to tie up a deal that can be on the Senate floor by the end of next month. Proponents of a Superfund designation are pumping out reports that underscore the extent of the contamination from the toxic chemicals, with new ones released this week focusing on Alaska and California. Rep. Harley Rouda, the chairman of the Oversight Environment Subcommittee; Rep. Dan Kildee, the co-chair of the PFAS Task Force; and other House Democrats will hold another press conference today to make their case for the controversial provision’s inclusion. Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee will get another chance to underscore their position when the subcommittee votes this morning on 15 bills, including a number related to PFAS. Some of those bills, including H.R. 535 (116) to require the Superfund designation, are already included in the House’s defense measure. Meanwhile, in the Senate the companion CERCLA bill (S. 638 (116)) now has every Democrat signed on as a cosponsor, as well as six Republicans. Lawmakers in the upper chamber also voted Wednesday on a non-binding motion to instruct conferees to stick with the Senate’s more aggressive timeline to phase out military firefighting foam containing PFAS.” [Politico, 9/26/19 (=)]

 

We’ve Got This. According to Politico, “The Trump EPA is trying to signal that it can handle PFAS just fine on its own, thank you very much. The agency announced with an unusual amount of fanfare Wednesday that it had sent two PFAS rules to the White House for review — one to collect input about what kinds of public disclosures companies should have to make about their PFAS emissions, and another to restrict imports of products containing PFOA and PFOS. Both regulations are lower-tier issues addressed in the Senate’s PFAS package. … Administrator Andrew Wheeler is keynoting K&L Gates’ PFAS symposium this morning. His speech begins at 9 a.m.” [Politico, 9/26/19 (=)]

 

PFAS Language Gets Unanimous Senate Backing. According to E&E News, “The Senate approved a motion yesterday against the Pentagon using firefighting foam with chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. The language was part of ongoing talks between House and Senate negotiators on the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) pushed a motion to instruct conferees to support a provision that would phase out use of the toxic chemicals in military base firefighting foam. Once widely used for their nonstick properties, PFAS have been linked to health problems and water contamination. ‘We must protect our troops, our firefighters, our communities and our water,’ Peters said on the Senate floor. The language passed by unanimous consent. Democrats and Republicans, and the House and Senate, remain at odds, however, over language to designative PFAS as hazardous.” [E&E News, 9/26/19 (=)]

 

Senate Urges NDAA Conferees To Keep PFAS Firefighting Foam Phaseout. According to Politico, “The Senate today voted to urge conferees to maintain a strict, three-year phaseout of the military’s use of PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam in its final version of the National Defense Authorization Act. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), joined by presidential candidate Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), put forward the nonbinding ‘motion to instruct.’ The resolution passed on a voice vote. Both the House and Senate included provisions that would require the Defense Department to phase out its use of firefighting foam containing the toxic chemicals in their NDAA bills, but the chambers differed in the length of time they gave the military to find an alternative. The Senate’s stricter phaseout, S. 1790, would require DoD to stop using the foams by October 2020, while the House’s bill would give the military until the end of January 2025 to find an alternative. Pentagon officials have strongly objected to any mandated timeline, saying they are aggressively searching for alternatives but don’t want an arbitrary deadline for what they consider a matter of safety. The White House said it ‘strongly objects’ to the House provision as part of a July veto threat of the legislation, and reiterated that objection in a letter to Senate Armed Services Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) earlier this month laying out concerns with the Senate’s bill. The firefighting foam language is just one piece of a broader set of PFAS provisions being negotiated on the defense bill that include designating the substances as hazardous for the purposes of Superfund, requiring EPA to set a drinking water limit and requiring discharge limits and public reporting.” [Politico, 9/25/19 (=)]

 

House Energy Panel PFAS Bills May Boost Defense Legislation Provisions. According to Inside EPA, “A House Energy and Commerce panel is scheduled to mark up a package of 13 bills dealing with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that includes provisions contained in House and Senate defense bills, asserting the committee’s jurisdiction over the subject and potentially boosting support for the measures in the final defense bill. The markup by the energy committee’s Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee comes as conferees to the fiscal year 2020 defense authorization bill are negotiating how to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, including differing approaches to PFAS regulation. Sources tracking the issue say that if the environment panels in both chambers are unable to reach agreement on the PFAS provisions, it would be left to the defense committees to resolve in talks over their final bill. The Senate defense bill includes a bipartisan package of PFAS provisions that includes requirements for EPA to set a drinking water standard and address the compounds under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) but notably does not contain language requiring EPA to designate PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund law.” [Inside EPA, 9/25/19 (=)]

 

Changing PFAS Universe Challenges EPA’s Test Method Development. According to Inside EPA, “EPA is poised to release next month a new method that will be able to detect nearly a dozen additional per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water beyond what the current method allows and focus on new, shorter-chain compounds that have been difficult to detect until now, EPA scientists say. But the scientists say a method that will detect all PFAS remains a distant goal because new compounds are constantly being developed. A total PFAS method is ‘the holy grail,’ with lots of people inside and outside the agency interested in a single approach, but its development is still a ways off, Steven Wendelken of EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water said Sept. 24 at the 16th Annual EPA Drinking Water Workshop in Cincinnati, OH, and webcast nationally. PFAS detection method development is a high priority for the agency, not only for drinking water but also for surface water and nonpotable groundwater, where research is still underway, Wendelken said. Marc Mills of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) added the agency hopes to have two options for detecting PFAS in solids, such as soil, completed in about 12 months. But developing the methods remains challenging, as does trying to determine the source of PFAS contamination in order to effectively characterize and clean up contamination, Wendelken and Mills said.” [Inside EPA, 9/25/19 (=)]

 

 

Please do not respond to this email.

If you have questions or comments please contact mitch@beehivedc.com